THE concept of "party" at Harvard evokes certain images: a small, out-of-the-way room party--harmless because of its spontaneity; mixers on a cabinet next to a Mac; a little U2, Suzanne Vega, or even LL Cool J on the turntable. One can go to three or four little gatherings in a night, meet people, dance, and go home happy. And not worry about interference by Harvard or its agents.

The partying that has kept Harvard alive in the past was punctuated by a little bureaucratization, party lists, reserving rooms and the occasional tutorial intervention. But there was still no need to call the cavalry and break up a group of students with all the force of a riot squad.

But with this semester comes the ominous new, all-encompassing alcohol policy with its weak motives, cumbersome rules and regulations and unreachable, and possibly nonexistent, goals.

THE "preamble" (if it may be so called) of a memo sent out to the House Committees and the House offices contains this sentence as the raison d'etre for the alcohol policy's enactment: "respect for the law and by the view that students should not be deprived of learning opportunities conistent with it."

Students can learn nothing except disrespect for any alcohol policy. Remember the mocking motto on the back of Quincy House T-shirts: "Thank you for obeying Massachusets drinking laws."

The policy goes through procedures about licences, common rooms and the Beverage Action Teams (BAT's). The regulations force sponsors of any gathering of 75 or more people to hire carders--this turns the old two-keg, $85.50 party into a massive expense. And in some case you can't charge admission. Bingo. Social life suffers and more pictures of Dean Epps are pinned on dartboards.

The memo then makes the typical intimidating statement of what will happen when the policy fails: "There are colleges and universities that have banned alcohol altogether from their campuses."

The statement is hollow; Harvard would never stoop that low. After all, a universal alcohol ban would be unenforceable. Just look at all the other alternatives in Cambridge for sudsing up, and the fact that alcohol, once it is in the system, cannot be banned.

Then again, it would not be Harvardian to slap a ban on alcohol. After all, which universities do? Brigham Young and Oral Roberts University.

BUT there are many loopholes in the new alcohol policy which no amount of red tape can close. For one thing, the policy will not regulate student activities which are not part of Harvard, such as finals club parties. As an "unaffiliated" organization, the finals clubs can serve as much alcohol as they want without party lists, BAT's or interference.

The rule about party organizers having to buy a Cambridge liquor and/or entertainment license to have a large party is purely ridiculous. The rule constitutes municipal interference in the orderly running of a private insitution and as such should be stopped.

And if the university decides that what students do in their rooms is the university's business, only resentment will be left in its wake.